The Euro-American Split (I): Dread Possibility
scholars-stage.org
scholars-stage.org
> Nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.
From a European perspective, the "growing security burden" is largely an American self-serving assertion. Standing on the other side of the pond, one could also read the situation as "the USA apparently willing and eager for European taxpayers to assume the growing burdern to maintain the apparatus required for global American hegemony".
We really should focus on isolationism and global trade. Even securing shipping lines is short term thinking. Let the conflicts happen and then things stabilize.
As a European, you would have such a perspective. But in the eyes of European politicians, they wouldn't view the issue as you do. This is because their sole purpose of existence is to be vassals of the hegemony. They are unable to accept the consequences of a U.S. strategic contraction. If the U.S. withdrew from Europe, Europeans would still be Europeans, but the politicians might not necessarily be.
It seems to me that both the US and Europe see some benefits, but it's primarily Europe?
Didn't Ukraine switch to Europe as it's energy supply?
Imho the Russian invasion pushing Europe to secure its energy supply has been a positive impact from the war.
Everyone who values peace and cooperation over war and conquest.
US military spending is currently at a historic low, at 2.7% of the gross domestic product (GDP). During the Cold War, military spending never fell below 4.5%. Chart: https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2002099941...
As of 2024, 1% of US GDP equals approximately 290 billion dollars per year. A return to Cold War era baseline would mean 1.8% increase or about 520 billion more spent on the military each year. (Probably even more, since the US entered the Cold War with a massive WWII-era army and the industry to support it. The US isn't currently capable of producing a new main battle tank every 20 minutes like back then.)
The US has spent 120 billion in all forms of aid (military, financial, humanitarian) to Ukraine over three years. That's 40 billion dollars per year on average. Why would anyone throw away the current support for Ukraine that effectively keeps Russia in check, only to replace it with renewed Cold War standoff in the middle of Europe that is bound to cost at least ten times more?
It's as if some people have fallen into collective amnesia and forgotten what the world looked like just 40 years ago. Germany was split in half by barbed wire and minefields, and civilians were gunned down from machine gun nests if they tried to flee from totalitarian oppression in East Germany to the free West Germany. Along the border that separated free people of Europe from those under Moscow-controlled dictatorships, massive armies stood facing each other.
I understand why Putin wants it all back. This was the world he was born into, the system he grew up with and indoctrinated into at the KGB. These were the glory days of the Russian empire of his time. But why on earth would any European or American want to turn back time?
European countries closest to Russia have already started increasing military spending to about 5%, and even countries as far west as France have floated the same idea. With the return of Cold War era threats that the sitting American president is cheerleading, it's just inevitable.
That means we have to stop the hot war, which just gets people killed and has caused at least 10 million refugees all over Europe.
So, like Germany, it can give up territories in the East for practical reasons.
The fortifications need to be build, the borders need to be secured and Ukraine has to be armed. Ukraine can then live well like Germany and Austria (not in NATO) during the cold war.
Continuing the hot war is insane.
And also Ukraine gets under a Nuclear umbrella?
The US was already supposed to protect Ukraine's borders according to the Budapest memorandum. What proof do you have the US will now commit to protect Ukraine like it protected West Germany during the Cold War?
Europe is in such desperate need of immigration to offset their population decline.
And Russians/Ukrainians are generally a lot better at integrating that Middle Eastern muslims or Africans because of the religious divide.
In the short run if I was the EU I would send troops to comprehensively defeat the Russians in Ukraine, including taking Crimea back, and then take Belarus. The westernization of Belarus and Ukraine would make a mighty wall of defense against Russia and allow the EU to wait out the fall of Putin and the massive chaos it will cause.
Till the invasion of Ukraine, I did not know so many people were so eager to kill young men and civilians.
Putin is a ghoul that sends prisoners and "lesser" ethnicities to their deaths in meat waves assaults in Ukraine. He looks at Soviets machine gunning their own retreating underequipped death assaults as the proper way to run an army. He steals children, attacks civilians, bombs nuclear plants, mocks your leaders, threatens nuclear armageddon.
Look, you fight him in Ukraine, or you fight in Eastern Europe, or you fight him on your home soil. You honor your democratic oaths and commitments to alliance and protection, or you cowardly abandon your allies to Putin.
There is no magic land where no soldiers die in this age. The 75 years of pax americana post-WWII peace is over.
The current "peace" accord is appeasement and imperial robbery by the US. Russia will simply use it to learn, restock, marshal forces, and reattack in 2-5 years, only a moron wouldn't see that. Putin's stated strategic goals are to attack the Baltics and Poland at a minimum, and if he successfully does that with a still functioning army, he will proceed westward until he is stopped.
If we really cared about not spilling blood, NATO would have provided unrestrained aerial superiority and bombing to nullify all Russian artillery, missiles, and bombing, and brought their logistics to a halt. Instead we chose to arm Ukraine with the minimum amount of resistance and annoyance to drain both the Ukrainian and Russian forces.
We live in interesting times.
During the 4 decades of the Cold War, Finland and Austria studiously avoided joining NATO to avoid provoking the Soviet Union and no soldiers died.
Share of Finnish adults saying that they agree with their country seeking NATO membership:
Nov 1991 ... 22%
Feb 1994 ... 25%
Dec 2000 ... 20%
Mar 2014 ... 30%
Oct 2021 ... 24%
Oct 2022 ... 85%
But even a simple analysis conducted by amateurs in a comment section can see that Finland's decision to join NATO in 2023 does not discredit their decision not to join in 1947 because the line past which the great power to the east cannot project military force has moved east a great deal between 1947 and 2023 and because the decisionmakers in the Kremlin might reasonably have seen the Finnish border as the Kremlin's point of greatest vulnerability in 1947 whereas in 2023 it was obvious that they would be seeing their border with Ukraine as the greater vulnerability (by a wide margin) since it is close to Moscow and important strategic-nuclear installations and since it is very densely populated compared to its border with Finland and since it is where much of Russia's food is grown.
It was precisely in Helsinki, Finland, where representatives of all countries of Europe met in 1975 and adopted joint principles for cooperation to reduce Cold War tensions. These principles became known as the Helsinki Accords and are considered a major milestone in European diplomacy and security.
Among the most important principles was the inviolability of national borders and a pledge to refrain from the violent alteration of international borders in Europe:
III. Inviolability of frontiers
The participating States regard as inviolable all one another's frontiers as well as the frontiers of all States in Europe and therefore they will refrain now and in the future from assaulting these frontiers.
Accordingly, they will also refrain from any demand for, or act of, seizure and usurpation of part or all of the territory of any participating State.
For Finland, this was a learning moment and the final nail in the coffin for Finnish neutrality. Experts abandoned it, and the public opinion followed them. Finnish diplomacy had for the longest time tried to establish clear principles to foster good relations between different blocs in Europe, but Russians just flushed it all down the drain and there was nothing left to work with.
When Russia invades your country, will you roll over to avoid killing people?
It's primarily the American MIC. And following a peace deal, the American companies that will do the "reconstruction" of the country.
Do you want to have nuclear proliferation? Because if countries can redraw borders by brute force, then nukes are necessary for every state that want to survive.
This just demonstrates to every country to get your nuclear weapons to protect your self, each country is on its own.
"Japan, South Korea, and Poland need nuclear weapons immediately":
* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/japan-south-korea-and-poland-n...
Originally posted last year, but re-upped now due to the new US stance to Ukraine/Russia and Poland may wish to consider things more seriously.
All the money that the US sent "to Ukraine" has actually mostly gone to US defence manufacturers that are building weapon systems and ammunition to shoot at Russia.
This resurgence in defence building is a primary benefit to the US as it has been a convenient excuse to get is procurement act together against the larger threat of China.
The second answer is all the bordering states; support for the war is extremely high there, as they understand they might be next. This is particularly true in countries that were occupied by Russia in the last century. In these places there is lots of grassroots suppport like the Radarom campaign. https://radarom.lrt.lt/en
What you say here is sort of absurd. The USA has by far spent much more on subsidizing and covering European defense than it has ever asked European powers to pay into its own global hegemony. Europe has inordinately benefited from this for decades, regardless of whether it also helps the U.S in its own defense or for that matter hegemonic needs, or not.
That does not sound like a win at all, except for the US.
Furthermore, without US military spending and protection claims, the dollar would collapse.
The hegemony was chaired by the US obviously which was on the other side of an ocean.
It's true that the US is a maritime power and is therefore easy to defend, but maritime empires are also difficult to administer and exert direct influence. Imagine if Germany had the level of hegemony (not in the nazi sense, just the absolute geopolitical power sense), being any country around it would be very dangerous, because it is inevitable that continental superpowers throw their weight around in ground military actions. Example: Russia obviously, and they aren't even really a superpower.
This may awaken a sleeping tiger in the EU. An unreliable US and a common enemy (Russia) may integrate the largest collective GDP association and a half a billion people into a cohesive military power.
France has occasionally been pseudo-imperialist in Africa in recent years, but the EU is poised to dominate Africa and possibly (if it can defeat them in the correct way) all of Russia if it properly arms.
Because if you force people to militarize, there has to be a justification for it economically. The natural justification of a militarized EU is to dominate its continental neighbors and exert trade dominance over its hemisphere.
The US should be concerned about its naval dominance as well, the pillar of its maritime power. The Ukraine war has shown that drones make littoral combat extremely dangerous for any capital surface ship, and it's likely in the next ten years that a swarm drone fleet will do the same for submarines in nearshore.
The next question is when drones become usable against deepwater ships. Carrier groups may still be able to project air power, but air drones may whittle away at even high altitude air superiority that carriers can project.
Brazen nazi salutes by US leaders are critically damaging the "brand" of the United State in EU. I can't think of anything short of actual military action against the EU that would more motivate disentanglement from the US.
People need to remember that the US doesn't really make anything anymore, it was all outsourced to China. Our maritime dominance kept us (eg the petrodollar system) in a position of global economic control, but if the EU and China simply cut America out of the equation, and only treat it as a consumption market (what would the EU need from America that Africa and Asia/China could not provide?).
EU did try to extend the paradigm to relations with Russia. And it also worked for a while, until USA started meddling with Ukraine to avoid drifting into irrelevance as a superpower.
The people in EU no longer feel any need to dominate their neighbours. It is the USA that attempts to force their hand, aided by the current corrupt EU political elite (hello Mark Rutte).
The EU will dominate its theater neighbors: Russia (once Putin dies and the country turns into total chaos), Africa, Middle East, Arctic (because Canada will closely align with the EU, that provides right there about 50% of arctic control by EU/non-US NATO, and when Putin falls and Siberia is up for grabs, it will be the EU or China that grab it.
While the EU as a single body maintains a facade of unity while things are more or less stable and no major sacrifice is required of many of its members, long-held nationalisms and individual member-level self interests are not far below the surface of individual countries. In a major crisis, these could easily break open and shatter the union.
The U.S on the other hand is exceptionally cohesive (current superficial political divides notwithstanding). Virtually all Americans identify with the idea of America as a whole single nation and would ferociously defend this ideal if it were seriously threatened. This gives it a unique edge when coupled with its enormous material power, it's superb access to internal natural resources and its obvious geographic invulnerability to military harm from anything except nuclear attack or maybe, a massive EMP strike.
Russia has no chance whatsoever of actually successfully invading the EU nations via conventional military means, but it can threaten them in ways that don't apply to the United States and any enemy it has..
The US has always wanted the EU to be a "junior" partner, dependent on the US, to make sure it doesn't challenge it one day.
The proof to what I write? Watch how quick Trump and his coterie will become belligerent when the EU doesn't buy US weapons or begins to show strategic autonomy.
(the suspiciously long decked ship named after one of the Pearl Harbor carriers, the JSDF Kaga, is a helicopter carrier. For treaty purposes this a completely different kind of thing, nothing to see here)
Edit in response to [deleted] comment:
> Until recently, "covering European defense" from what? What were the dangers that Europe was threatened with?
Russia (again); also "terrorism" and, in the 90s, the Balkan conflict.
The war in Ukraine began in 2014, not 2022, explictly in response to Euromaidan. Shortly afterwards Russian forces shot down a Malaysian civilian airliner carrying Dutch nationals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17
In 2018 Russia carried out a nerve agent chemical warfare terrorist attack against the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_... ; this was extremely under-emphasized at the time.
And now it is extremely over-emphasized. /s
A targeted assasination attempt, as despicable as it may be on its own right, is miles away from a "chemical warfare terrorist attack" against a country, don't you think?
Given how weak most terrorist attacks are, I'd say it's absolutely the same ball park as most such attacks.
Of course, as various media noted at the time, the media reporting of terrorism during the war on terror was wildly out of kilter with the actual risk.
Potato, potato. If it had been done by a Muslim the reaction would have been very different. One guy's failed shoe bomb plot (Richard Reid) caused every airline security worldwide to make everyone take off their shoes for years.
It is hard to determine whether the European countries have gained more by spending less on defense than they have lost by buying more American weapons.
At least for the newer members of NATO it is pretty certain that their admission has brought great profits for USA, because in most cases it has been conditioned by the requirement to fund expensive contracts with US companies, e.g. for military aircraft.
In addition. Extorting a country that is victim of military aggression. Going to bed with a bloodthirsty dictator. That has nothing to do with the defense-spending arguments. That is just amoral, to put it lightly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates...
It was plausible to say the Soviet Union was a threat to America because it sought to export communism worldwide. Nobody thinks Russia has any such designs.
The NRA getting infiltrated happened in or before 2015: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nra-2015-moscow-trip-wasnt-o... => https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/26/maria-butina...
This is patently false. Whenever the EU starts its own defense initiatives, the US interferes immediately:
https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence/news/eu-fends-off-u...
For a proper European deterrence the EU would needs its own nuclear force and an independent foreign policy. Which the US would attempt to shut down very quickly.
What the US really wants is for the EU to buy US hardware with kill switches and manufacture shells for US directed proxy wars. Perhaps also supply EU soldiers in Ukraine that function as a tripwire for the continuation of Nuland's pet conflict.
The status quo is that the EU is happy with its abusive vassal relationship, pays slightly less for defense and lets the US reap benefits from a sovereign foreign policy and a dollar that is propped up by its military might.
Be careful what you ask for!
To reiterate, the EU is the largest GDP bloc and a half a billion people, and they have theater dominance over Africa and the Middle East, and possibly Russia if Putin dies and Russia fades further.
If you force a country to arm, it looks for historical and geopolitically practical ways to benefit from that armament. That is geopolitical inevitability.
The EU is dismissed as too fragmented to unite, but there are two very convenient boogeymen to unite the EU: Putin, an authoritarian ghoul of naked aggression with vast historical echoes in European history, and the openly nazi saluting US, with its own historical echoes and the simmering resentment of soft dominance.
i like how it referenced Planck's principle
> Cultures do not change when people replace their old ideas with new ones; cultures change when people with new ideas replace the people with old ones.
I want to add something, here, 'people with new ideas', is not trump, trump is a man without any ideas, the one with new ideas is JD Vance
What I mean is, JD Vance represents the ideas of the group of Americans who voted for Trump - the group of Americans who believe they don't reap benefits from the hegemony
it's quite obvious base on what he said
https://x.com/JDVance/status/1892569791140946073
https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/02/18/vance-speech-munich-ful...
The US goals have been for decades to force the EU to buy US military hardware and to make sure the EU can't become an independent military power. They kept Europe on a leash, kept it tame, and now they complain that "we depend on us".
Make no mistake, the second the EU becomes militarily independant and strong, they will complain as loudly. Look first for Trump applying pressure because we don't buy American weapons, and then him or his cult casting the EU into their geopolitical adversary.
Uncharitably ... he is doing Putin's bidding for whatever unknown reason Putin has such absolute influence over Trump, because Putin thinks it will allow him to invade eastern NATO and retake the Sulwalki gap and possibly the former warsaw pact, which is basically a pipe dream of a madman. Russia does not have the military hardware to beat Ukraine, and it doesn't have the manpower: Russian meat waves can barely be sustained in Ukraine, and certainly wouldn't against the EU NATO forces as they exist now.
(and without the notorious US-made military equipment kill-switches)
And while we're at it, this time will be different: Instead of the membership criteria being anti-communism, it should be effective *Liberal Democracy*. So, to be part,
1. Compulsory ICC membership - hence no exceptionalistic US, and no exceptionalistic Israel.
2. No "Illiberal Democracies": say, for example, composite of a minimum 0.67 score on the WJP Rule of Law Index and others: therefore no Orbanic Hungary, and no illiberal others like it. Poland, Slovakia, Italy: you better watch your ways if you want in.
3. Democratic backsliding removes you rights in the Alliance, and, can proportionally lead to outright expulsion.
Not one more *new* military equipment purchase from the US, (or other non-qualifying nations). Member nations should use their - substantial - industrial capacity to equip themselves with indigenous military materiel.
Hey, it would be actually great for their economy!
Initially European scope, but bridges to a broader global scope (or even a secondary sister-Alliance) with open-ended partnerships with Canada, Australia, New Zeland, Japan, South Korea, and yes: Taiwan.
US and/or Israel want to join, if a more Democratic future selves? Simple: fully join the ICC, and meet the Alliance's full criteria as every other member.
Same applies for prospective new members.
Not interested? Bye, your problem.
The use of the expression "Liberal Democracy" is just to counter the indeed newspeak self-named "Illiberal Democracy" - you, and everyone, knows very well today what that is.
And no one is above the law, including elected leaders.
Liberalism, in this sense, is about guaranteeing universal freedoms, not imposing ideology. Your subtext actually counters:
- Equality before the law;
- Free speech, assembly and religion;
- Protection from arbitrary (state) power, as due process is actually a thing.
Labeling these principles as "ideological" is misleading. Liberal democracy ensures:
- Civil rights movements (e.g., LGBTQ+, racial equality) succeed through debate and persuasion, not judicial fiat.
- Property rights and independent courts attract investment and foster prosperity (e.g., Denmark vs. Venezuela).
You seem to forget that Liberal Democracy’s constraints on power are openly debated and codified in constitutions—unlike autocratic regimes that manipulate language (e.g., Russia’s "managed democracy").
Finally, Liberal Democracy is not a bug but a feature:
- It prevents "51% oppression" (majorities violating minority rights / rule of the mob).
- It enables peaceful power transitions (e.g., Biden to Trump in 2025, vs the reverse).
- It fosters long-term stability by balancing popular will with rule of law.
That was never a “consensus.” It was a quasi-religious moral framework imposed on the world by Wilsonian elites who turned out to be minorities even within their own western countries. Those ideas have little purchase in India or China or Bangladesh, or even Poland or, these days, Florida.
> And no one is above the law, including elected leaders.
If you implement that concept literally, you have a society where the real power is held by judges and prosecutors who interpret the law. That’s not democracy.
> Liberalism, in this sense, is about guaranteeing universal freedoms, not imposing ideology.
What “freedom” entails reflects ideology. Thais don’t agree with Americans don’t agree with Germans, for example, about what constitutes “free speech.”
Not only that, “freedom” is such a broad and vague concept that if you empower unelected philosopher kings to decide what constitutes “freedom” or not you displace democracy.
To use one specific example:
> ensures: - Civil rights movements (e.g., LGBTQ+, racial equality) succeed through debate and persuasion, not judicial fiat
At least in the U.S., the proponents of supposed “liberal democracy” achieved both through judicial fiat, overriding electoral majorities. And they continue to press ideas that are broadly unpopular with voters (such as affirmative action) through unaccountable bureaucracies. I expect you’ll see the same thing happen with immigration issues in Western Europe.
That is the predictable result of the whole concept of “liberal democracy.” Once you declare that major issues are too important for the political process then ideologues have tremendous incentive to reframe every issue in those terms.
Know your History better:
The UDHR was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948 with 48 votes in favor, including nations from Latin America (e.g., Mexico, Brazil), the Middle East (e.g., Lebanon, Iran), and Asia (e.g., India, Philippines). Only eight countries abstained (Soviet bloc, Saudi Arabia, South Africa). Hardly Wilsonian.
More! Actually the Indian delegation insisted on gender-neutral language: “all human beings” instead of “all men”.
Clearly it was a global compromise, not a Western diktat.
As for "societies run by judges" - this fundamentally misunderstands Constitutional Democracy.
Judges interpret laws created by elected bodies within constitutional frameworks that were themselves democratically approved. They protect the system's integrity, not override it. When courts strike down laws violating minority rights, they're functioning as intended - preventing democratic processes from being used to undermine Democracy itself. This isn't anti-democratic; it's ensuring democracy remains sustainable.
Your example about Florida is telling. When democratic backsliding occurs, it's not "freedom from liberalism" but rather the dismantling of crucial democratic guardrails. True democracy requires both electoral processes and institutional protections.
On LGBTQ+ rights and affirmative action - these weren't imposed solely by courts. They emerged through complex interactions between social movements, legislative actions, and judicial decisions. The courts didn't act in isolation but responded to evolving societal understanding of constitutional principles - or should we go back to segregation?
Your alternative to liberal democracy isn't "more democracy" - it would be a vulnerable "elected regime" that can be dismantled from within (ever heard about a certain election in 1933?). History shows that without institutional protections, electoral systems alone can facilitate their own destruction.
Liberal Democracy isn't perfect, but it's proven more resilient and just than any alternative system of governance yet devised.
Indeed: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
Democracy has nothing to do with “minority rights.” That’s a fixation of liberalism, and it’s in tension with democracy. And in practice it’s a vehicle for liberals to overrule the democratic majority on almost everything, because everything can be framed in terms of “rights.” (See Sanders’ recent push to reframe healthcare as a right.)
Constitutions and laws haven’t meant anything for a century. At one time you could argue a constitution was a way for a democratic super-majority to bind future transient majorities. But the prevailing American view of constitutional interpretation in the 20th century posited that “emanations from penumbras” was a source of constitutional law. That means that something that the people never ratified in the past could overrule democratic majorities in the present.
“Liberal democracy” is nothing more than rule by philosopher kings, either judges or these days administrators. It’s not meaningfully democracy. It’s indistinguishable from Iran’s Guardian Council, which overrides democracy to ensure compliance with Islamic law. Same shit, different religion.
I’ll get back to you, but I’ll say this for now:
Liberal Democracy’s fusion of majority rule and minority rights isn’t elitist—it’s the hard-earned lesson of centuries of bloodshed.
Dismissing it as “philosopher kings” ignores its core premise: *No one*, not even the majority, is above the law.
Someone must decide what the law is. Unless interpretation of the law is tightly cabined--and in practice it is not--that turns the interpreters of the law into philosopher kings that are above democracy.
Your position creates a false choice between unconstrained judicial power and unconstrained majority power. Real constitutional democracies have multiple checks and balances: Courts interpret within boundaries set by elected bodies. Legislatures can amend constitutions. Voters can change both. No single group becomes "philosopher kings."
The "tightly cabined" standard you propose would paradoxically require exactly the kind of unaccountable super-authority you claim to oppose. Who would decide what counts as "tight" enough? Who would enforce those limits? Your solution creates the very problem you're trying to solve.
Constitutional democracy isn't about putting anyone "above democracy" - it's about creating a stable system where democracy can actually function long-term. Without protected rights and independent courts, democracy quickly becomes nothing more than temporary tyranny of 50%+1.
The history of successful democracies versus failed ones proves this isn't theoretical. Which systems have maintained stable democratic transitions of power over generations? The ones with strong constitutional frameworks and independent courts.
Your concern about "everything framed as rights" ignores that rights frameworks actually limit government power rather than expand it. They create boundaries the state cannot cross, protecting citizens—including those who voted for the *losing* side.
As for India's representation being dismissed as "Oxford-educated elites"—this reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of decolonization movements. India's constitutional democracy was chosen deliberately after colonial rule, reflecting broad-based aspirations for self-determination. Were the Salt March events or the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, Oxford garden parties?
The historical record is clear: societies without minority protections inevitably descend into conflict when majorities abuse power. Liberal democracy isn't perfect, but it's the only system that has consistently enabled peaceful transfers of power, protected basic freedoms, and fostered both stability and accountability over generations.
Your argument isn't for "more democracy"—it's for temporary majority license without responsibility. True democracy requires institutions strong enough to survive their own processes.
Aha - the attempt to discredit Bernie Sanders' "healthcare as a right" stance backfires spectacularly if we look, for example, to Portugal:
Portugal enshrined healthcare as a constitutional right in 1976 after overthrowing a *fascist* dictatorship. Far from undermining democracy, this constitutional provision emerged directly from democratic revolution and enjoys overwhelming popular support across the political spectrum 50 years later.
Portugal's healthcare system delivers universal coverage at half the cost of America's while achieving better outcomes. This constitutional right didn't emerge from "judicial fiat" but from democratic consensus, and its implementation occurs through elected parliaments, not courts.
The Portuguese example demolishes your argument - it demonstrates how rights frameworks strengthen democracy rather than undermine it, creating stable systems that survive multiple transfers of power between left and right governments without threatening democratic foundations.
Perhaps study actual functioning democracies before lecturing others about what democracy means?
PS: Interesting how your critique of 'philosopher kings' only applies to judges protecting rights, never to leaders eliminating them.
There is no meaningful distinction between the two when you posit, as most of the American legal community does, that "emanations from penumbras" are a valid source of "law." The only difference is the particular axioms of the supposed universal law that are invoked to override the democratic will.
> Your concern about "everything framed as rights" ignores that rights frameworks actually limit government power rather than expand it. They create boundaries the state cannot cross, protecting citizens—including those who voted for the losing side.
Democracy isn't about limiting government. The whole point of democracy is to enable the majority to use the government to create the kind of society in which they want to live. And, of course, it doesn't just limit government. "Rights" are regularly invoked to force the public to enact programs or spend money on things the public does not want to support.
> As for India's representation being dismissed as "Oxford-educated elites"—this reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of decolonization movements.
Decolonization movements were led by Oxford-educated elites in India against Oxford-educated elites in Britain. They never had widespread purchase from ordinary people: https://unherd.com/2021/04/the-culture-wars-of-post-colonial.... For example, "secularism" as one of the four central pillars of Bangladesh's constitution was a western imposition. Actual Bangladeshis never supported it, and promptly made Islam the official religion.
Your view of democracy as pure majoritarianism misses the core purpose of constitutional democracy - protecting fundamental rights that enable democracy itself to function. Without protected rights to speech, assembly, and equal treatment under law, majorities can simply vote away others' ability to participate in democracy. This isn't theoretical - it's precisely how Hitler dismantled Weimar Germany's democracy and how countless other democracies have been destroyed from within.
On India, you're not just cherry-picking - you're erasing History. While independence leaders were often educated abroad, the movement encompassed massive popular mobilization. The suggestion that decolonization lacked popular support insults the millions who joined the Salt March and civil disobedience movements, and dishonors the many thousands who gave their lives at Jallianwala Bagh and countless other sacrifices for independence.
Portugal's example directly contradicts your argument. Their constitutional right to healthcare emerged from broad democratic consensus after overthrowing fascism. It's been successfully implemented through normal democratic processes for 50 years, delivering better outcomes at lower cost than systems without such protections. This demonstrates how rights frameworks can strengthen rather than undermine democratic governance.
And in Bangladesh, the 1988 shift to Islam as a state religion stemmed from military dictatorship—not popular will—and remains contested by civil society. This example actually underscores how democratic backsliding, not initial elitism, explains such changes.
Your framework would essentially reduce democracy to temporary majority rule without the institutional protections needed for democracy to survive over time. That's not enhancing democracy - it's providing a roadmap for its destruction.
But there is no legitimate basis to create new “rights” or expand the scope of agreed-upon “rights” based on philosophical or other considerations. That’s just Iran’s Guardian Council concept tethered to a different moralistic philosophy.
You're creating an artificial distinction between "expanding" rights and protecting them. When courts stopped governments from banning internet speech, were they "creating new rights" or protecting the existing right to free expression in a new context? When they applied equal protection to new forms of discrimination, were they "expanding rights" or fulfilling their original purpose?
Your comparison to Iran's Guardian Council continues to miss the mark. Constitutional courts interpret democratically-established texts through transparent legal reasoning, subject to democratic override. Iran's clerics impose religious doctrine with no democratic foundation or accountability. These aren't remotely comparable.
What you frame as "philosophical considerations" are actually necessary legal analysis of how established rights apply to new situations. Without this, constitutional rights become empty words, unable to serve their democratic purpose of protecting minority participation and preventing majority overreach.
The irony is that your position would create exactly what you claim to oppose - a system where rights mean whatever temporary majorities say they mean, making them no rights at all. That's not democracy - it's just mob rule with extra steps.